Prince George's County in 5 to 10 Years (Clinton: middle-class, fit in, lease)

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by InvaderBryce

The rich should pay a tax rate of anywhere from 37% to 40%. In return, the government cuts spending across the board and starts paying down the debt.

Everyone will be happy and we can all get along again.

Why should someone that has worked hard to earn wealth, be penalized for being more successful than the rest of us? I think that's unfair and that reeks of a socialist agenda. We all have the opportunity to be successful in capitalistic society. If someone is a successful business person, they should be responsible for the same percentage as everyone else.

[InvaderBryce]

Yeah a rate of 37% is very socialist . Even more so than the rate of 60% that is being championed among the Liberal Democrats in Congress. How dare I ask for a reasonable rate in return for spending cuts, debt reduction and a corporate tax rate of 5%!!!!

Curse my Socialist ways!

[slowlane3]

Actually, the top income tax bracket for 50 years taxed at 63% or higher. For much of that time it was 91%, 92%, even 94% during both Democ and Republ administrations.
Today's top rate of 35% is one of the lowest in history. See details here http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/histor...ividual-1.html


It is said that the richest 2% of taxpayers pay 70% of the income tax burden. But remember, that 2% earn about 50% of the nation's income, so if they pay only 70%, then that's barely progressive.

Furthermore, payroll taxes mostly fund the big entitlement programs. And payroll taxes hit lower income households harder than most, since 100% of their income is subject to them, unlike the rich who benefit from the $100K cap. Furthermore, lower income peoplke also pay a much higher pergentage of sales taxes than the rich, since their purchased needs make up a higher percentage of their income.

[wisedisguise]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Not me but the poster Invader was responding to. Their real goal is to confiscate private property and redistribute it.

Sorry, I only saw it in your post. I guess you saw how I reacted to it. I am far from wealthy but I know how and why wealthy people are so but they shouldn't be penalized for being better off than I.
How many poor people have trust funds that donate to charitable organizations or fund NPR/PBS on a yearly basis? If you watch a PBS program they list who paid for the programming.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by InvaderBryce

Yeah a rate of 37% is very socialist . Even more so than the rate of 60% that is being championed among the Liberal Democrats in Congress. How dare I ask for a reasonable rate in return for spending cuts, debt reduction and a corporate tax rate of 5%!!!!

Curse my Socialist ways!

Why should someone that is making an honest living, being successful at what they are doing, pay a higher percentage in taxes than me or you?

[InvaderBryce]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

Why should someone that is making an honest living, being successful at what they are doing, pay a higher percentage in taxes than me or you?

Ever heard of a Progressive tax code? Why should we (middle class) pay more than the people who make more than us? Does that even sound right? So by your logic, the rich should pay 15% and we should pay 28% in taxes because we shouldn't hurt the people at the top?

As I said before, 37% is a generous offer. Plus we'd also do away w/ that asinine Capital Gains Tax which can easily be covered by closing tax loopholes.

Missing a good opportunity here to actually get stuff done in this country and you got people on both sides trying to score political points.

[wisedisguise]

Originally Posted by InvaderBryce

Ever heard of a Progressive tax code? Why should we (middle class) pay more than the people who make more than us? Does that even sound right? So by your logic, the rich should pay 15% and we should pay 28% in taxes because we shouldn't hurt the people at the top?

As I said before, 37% is a generous offer. Plus we'd also do away w/ that asinine Capital Gains Tax which can easily be covered by closing tax loopholes.

Missing a good opportunity here to actually get stuff done in this country and you got people on both sides trying to score political points.

How many times do you propose taxing the same money year after year? If I earn it(earned income) I am taxed for it. If I invest it I am taxed for the dividends(capital gains). When I die someone has to pay taxes on it(death tax). I have to pay property taxes(damn near criminal here). I have to report interest paid by my checking account(I don't think it pays enough to worry about these days). It all stems from earned income at which we are taxed at the highest rate.
Loopholes are within the tax code so you can avoid being taxed just for having holdings. Why should a retired wealthy person have to pay taxes on previously taxed earnings; several times prior.
I take it don't have any investments as you are very much in favor of confiscating that which others hold.

[InvaderBryce]

Originally Posted by wisedisguise

How many times do you propose taxing the same money year after year? If I earn it(earned income) I am taxed for it. If I invest it I am taxed for the dividends(capital gains). When I die someone has to pay taxes on it(death tax). I have to pay property taxes(damn near criminal here). I have to report interest paid by my checking account(I don't think it pays enough to worry about these days). It all stems from earned income at which we are taxed at the highest rate.
Loopholes are within the tax code so you can avoid being taxed just for having holdings. Why should a retired wealthy person have to pay taxes on previously taxed earnings; several times prior.
I take it don't have any investments as you are very much in favor of confiscating that which others hold.

I have investments. I don't believe I should be taxed on income I indirectly made.

[wisedisguise]

Originally Posted by InvaderBryce

I have investments. I don't believe I should be taxed on income I indirectly made.

That is what you suggest. You lump all income anyone of wealth gains in a year to be taxed at an earned income level when they in fact gain most of that income passively. That is the point of being successful, wealthy and investing one's money. Everyone should want to live off passive income, something they gain indirectly. It's the ultimate American dream and can be yours if you try.

Earned income is taxed at roughly 28% whereas capital gains is taxed at roughly 15%. This info is told to the public incorrectly via the mass media. The truth about the different types of income is never discussed in these news reports, only that "name your wealthy guy" isn't paying his fair share.
In particular - Romney pays income taxes at the 15% rate because his is passive income. We are told it is not fair that he does so and that his secretary pays more taxes than he. She may pay at a higher rate due to the fact it is earned income but that is the law. There is no way she is handing over more money than he due to the fact she doesn't come near his income. If he is paying at the rate set forth by the type of income he receives it must surely be fair, correct? If you don't think you should be taxed for that income do you think Romney should? How about anyone else who receives income in the same manner?

It gets sticky when people want to tax others for that which they wouldn't want for themselves.

[ajsmith365]

Originally Posted by dkf747

Not so. Tax rates used to be far higher than they are now, and well north of 15%.

I'm too young to be a tax rate historian. Even if I were, historical tax rates are irrelevant in my eyes. Anyone who feels as though the government has the right to take 1/3 of anyone's salary - regardless of income - is a very, very, very patriotic person that I am not going to spend time debating with as it would be a stalemate. No disrespect; I say this with the utmost respect to you as you have your viewpoint and I'm steadfast on mine. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. But, working a whole season, or 100+ days, just to fulfill a tax obligation is outlandish especially when a government is ineffective at governing, enforcing and providing me with a good return on investment (ROI).

Also, the 35% tax rate is especially troubling - to me - now than rates before because everything is so inflated, or predicted to be inflated. Gas prices higher (yes, someone will bring up the 70s when I wasn't born), the 2012 drought will bring an estimated 6% higher food prices next year, O'Silly raising taxes, home prices down while real estate taxes went up for some, utility bills up, entertainment (movie, concert, sports) prices are up, and more collateral for loan obligations from "consumers". All while public services are being cut, halted or deteriorated. And, need I mention MD's Martin O'Silly and DC's Vincent Gray sucking the life out of the MIDDLE CLASS with additional money generating cash cows...red light and speeding cameras; they are literally bragging about how much revenue they pull in from these things and doubling the production of them all in an effort to "keep MD and DC residents safe".

The government could take 5% of my money, but if I feel as though they are being irresponsible and negligent with it, I'm going to have a serious problem with them...and, that's 5%. So, imagine how irritated I am going to be over 35%. I've loaned out $100 dollars and have gotten irritated when the individual spent it foolishly as opposed to being responsible with it.

Honestly, I find it disturbing that there are people in the world that think that people should be obligated to give the government 30% of their hard-earned money.